Is the 787 a failure ?

Vaughn wrote:
...
So that's why the FAA itself did only a minority part of the 787's
certification work. If Boeing waited for them, airlines would still be
flying DC-3's and there would be no Boeing.
...

Nonsense!

The change to the regulations that allowed Boeing to specify
the engineers, rather than the FAA, took place just in time for
the 787, in 2005 thanks to the Bush administration. (Will that
stench never leave us?)

--bks

Charlie+ chasg wrote:
|
| Did FAA let Boeing 'self-certify' safety of 787?
|
| The battery woes that have grounded the global fleet of
| Boeing 787s have raised a persistent question about how the
| Federal Aviation Administration certified the Dreamliner's
| cutting-edge design. The answer: Boeing, not the FAA,
| largely vouched for the airplane's safety.
| ...
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020288737_787faaxml.html
--bks
Surely there is no other way of doing the job, otherwise the Certifying
Authority would have to have all the massive costs and expertise of
double designing the aircraft?

We spend hundreds of billions a year on military aircraft. What's
the problem with spending a few million on engineers? And as I
pointed out cross-thread, this protocol was changed just in 2005.

--bks

Bush-appointee and rising star D. Hersman of NTSB will have a press
conference Thursday at 11 am EST.

|
| Engineering has been de-emphasized at Boeing so much that
| it's beginning to scare investors, according to Richard
| Aboulafia, the oft-quoted Teal Group aerospace analyst, who
| some have suggested has had a subtle pro-Boeing bias.
|
| Not this month.
| ...
| In his piece, Aboulafia criticized Boeing's stance at its
| Jan. 30 fourth quarter earnings call for a lack of
| "contrition or soul-searching."
|
| Instead, he wrote, it was like, "A farmer showing off a
| great crop but not mentioning that the tractor just broke,
| he fired the mechanic, and outsourced tractor maintenance
| to Bolivia."
|
| Aboulafia listed as problems last year's replacement of
| Boeing Commercial Airplanes' former CEO Jim Albaugh (who
| was an engineer), Boeing's current contract struggle with
| its engineers' union (which he said is partly the union's
| fault), and the Dreamliner's battery issue (which he said
| carried a "strong chance" the plane will require a
| six-to-nine-month grounding for re-certification.)
| ...
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2013/02/06/analyst-aboulafia-warns-boeings.html

--bks

On Feb 2, 7:48*pm, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:57:11 -0000, "Keith W"









wrote:
Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:16:31 -0800, Delvin Benet wrote:

On 1/28/2013 5:08 AM, Mr.B1ack wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:49:32 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:

On Jan 27, 2:19 am, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 12:30:42 -0800, Transition Zone wrote:
On Jan 25, 9:54 pm, "Mr.B1ack" wrote:
Strictly speaking, the 787 is not an engineering failure. Like
anything complex and new it has a few issues. So far these
issues haven't caused any fatalities.

But, the then-new EU Airbus airliner (A320) did have mostly
fatalities on an opening day mess-up, back on June 26, 1988, at
Mulhouse-Habsheim Airport. *Airbus's A380 had terrible delays,
too.

* * Irrevelant.

* * It did not acquire the REPUTATION for being dangerous.

And the A320 didn't?

That's all-important.

* That's all that counts.

The 787 is *done*.

I *way* doubt that.

* * Put it this way ... *I* won't fly on one.

I don't fly much any more - it's a miserable experience since 9/11 no
matter what the plane is - but I wouldn't have flown on the 787
until it had been in service for a year or so.

This battery problem is worse than the average sort of aeronautical
hiccup - more like a serious case of indigestion - but they'll
overcome it.

* They'll overcome *it - technically - but will that
* help in terms of public *perception* ? If the public
* thinks it's a deathtrap then why would airlines buy
* any ? Switch to Airbus instead.

* Remember Value-Jet ? Remember the flaming CRASH ?
* The *name* 'Value-Jet' became inviable - and they
* had to change it to "Jet-Blue".

* I don't think Boeing can try that trick.

erm Valujet did not change to JetBlue thats a quite
different airline

* Recall the planes, spend a year REALLY debugging
* them ... then re-issue them as the '797' instead.
* Tweak the cosmetics a bit too ... then it will
* *seem* like a new plane and public paranoia will
* be avoided. Yea, it'll be 99.5 percent the 787,
* but *perception* is what's gonna count.

Says the man who perceived Jetblue as the reincarnation of Valujet.

The reality is that MANY new aircraft have suffered minor
engineering issues that caused them to be grounded for
a while including the new Airbus 380

Keith

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...eet/30054350_1...

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

And you've repeated the above lies how any times now??

|
| Federal regulators said on Wednesday that they had approved
| one flight of a Boeing 787, with a flight crew but no
| passengers, as the company's engineers study possible
| changes to the plane's electrical systems that could reduce
| the risk of another battery fire.
| ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/business/faa-to-allow-a-787-flight-with-crew-only.html

--bks

NTSB hearing now in Q&A session. From Hersman's briefing:
o Not caused by mechanical impact on the battery
o Not caused by external short circuit
o Event started in one cell (cell #6) and spread to other cells.

Now looking at the Boeing certification and testing in depth,
with particular attention to the special conditions imposed
by FAA in 2007 on use of Lithium-Ion batteries:
o Boeing estimated chance of smoke emission
at 1 event in 10,000,000 flight hours, however
there were two events in less than 100,000 hours.
o Boeing said that design of battery would
prevent cell-to-cell propagation but NTSB
claims that is exactly what would happend.

Interim factual report will be issued within 30 days.
FAA makes the calls on flying, not NTSB.

--bks

On Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:33:34 +0000, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:

NTSB hearing now in Q&A session. From Hersman's briefing:
o Not caused by mechanical impact on the battery o Not caused by
external short circuit o Event started in one cell (cell #6) and
spread to other cells.


Lithium-ion batteries are nefarious for
suddenly bursting into flame. Dell and Sony
lost a ****load of money because of flaming
laptops.

Nickel-metal-hydride batteries still exist and
are the logical, safer, replacement technology.
Don't hold quite as much energy per unit weight
though and don't have quite as long a service
life either. Still, if it means yer plane doesn't
go down in flames with 600 passengers ....


Now looking at the Boeing certification and testing in depth, with
particular attention to the special conditions imposed by FAA in 2007 on
use of Lithium-Ion batteries:
o Boeing estimated chance of smoke emission
at 1 event in 10,000,000 flight hours, however there were two events
in less than 100,000 hours.
o Boeing said that design of battery would
prevent cell-to-cell propagation but NTSB claims that is exactly
what would happend.

Interim factual report will be issued within 30 days. FAA makes the
calls on flying, not NTSB.

Boeing was way behind on their orders ... so they
slapped a lot of lipstick on the 787 and declared
it safe and ready for service. Supposed federal
oversight was, as usual, nearly non-existent.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:15:47 -0800 (PST), Liberal Here
wrote:

Im trying to remember which prop job in the 1950s kept going
down...British aircraft IRRC....which had the tails snapping
off...some sort of metal fatigue/harmonics issue which took them
awhile to find and correct. They did a movie about it in the 1960s
IRRC

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

And you've repeated the above lies how any times now??

Which lies might those be? The movie about british aircraft snapping
off tails was indeed ID'ed

The sig is 100% accurate and remains a polished and accurate way to
**** you Leftwingers off as its accuracy is well established and you
simply cannot stand to have it flaunted in your faces.

VBG

Now back to the bit bucket..troll

plink

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Feb 11, 4:32*pm, Transition Zone wrote:
On Feb 11, 12:41*am, Daryl wrote:







On 2/10/2013 3:36 PM, Keith W wrote:

Daryl wrote:
On 2/10/2013 11:00 AM, Keith W wrote:
Vaughn wrote:

I have no idea why they chose the one they did. *Yes it has a
high density rate but it's also the one that some cell phones and
laptops used that companies like HP and Dell had to recall due to
that exact same problem.

The electric Cars (save for 2500 Tesla Hotrods that are out of
manufacture) are going to Lithium and Magnesium batteries these
days. *Not as high density as the LiPO4 or the LICO like is in
the 747 but it's much safer. *No the LiMag battery has a shorter
life span but in order to get it to catch fire you pretty well
have to short it directly across to do a really, really fast
discharge or really, really overcharge it. *There has been one
recorded fire from the LiMag batter and that was GM parking it in
the middle of an open field and shorting it completely across.
It took it 45 minutes to ignite. *OH, did I mention it costs less?

Daryl

The reason that a LiCoO2 battery was chosen is quite simple, when
the contract was signed in 2005 it was the only lithium based
battery certified for aviation use.

Considering I ran a LiMag battery since 2005, I find that hard to
believe unless there were some greased palms along the way to get

* that critter * *(LiCo) certified. *It's too dangerous for the
Auto Industry and the Bike Industry just plain won't use them either.

*Even most of the Computer and Phone Industry has stopped using *it due to some serious fire issues.

* I just found out that the lithium-iron phosphate (lipo) IS
*certified and currently being used as the main battery for the

*Citation Business Jet.
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.crafts.metalworking, rec.aviation.military, talk.politics.misc, alt.society.labor-unions
Is that the one that goes at the speed of sound or one of the straight-
winged ones?

I was looking at this citation jet crash with its engines actually
still going in the water. I couldn't believe this.

-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1Yf6_MVTck

|
| Tiny crystals that can cause lithium-ion batteries to
| short-circuit and fail are among areas under investigation
| in Boeing Co. (BA) 787 fire and smoke incidents, according
| to a U.S. agency conducting the probe.
|
| "It's definitely something we're looking at," Kelly Nantel,
| spokeswoman for the U.S. National Transportation Safety
| Board, said in an interview.
| ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-11/microscopic-crystals-studied-by-ntsb-in-787-battery-probe

Official Boeing Statement (dated 12 Feb 2013)
|
| Boeing welcomes the progress reported by the U.S. National
| Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the 787
| investigation, including that the NTSB has identified the
| origin of the event as having been within the battery. The
| findings discussed demonstrates a narrowing of the focus of
| the investigation to short circuiting observed in the
| battery, while providing the public with a better
| understanding of the nature of the investigation.
|
| The company remains committed to working with the NTSB, the
| U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and our
| customers to maintain the high level of safety the
| traveling public expects and that the air transport system
| has delivered. We continue to provide support to the
| investigative groups as they work to further understand
| these events and as we work to prevent such incidents in
| the future. The safety of passengers and crew members who
| fly aboard Boeing airplanes is our highest priority.
|
| The 787 was certified following a rigorous Boeing test
| program and an extensive certification program conducted by
| the FAA. We provided testing and analysis in support of the
| requirements of the FAA special conditions associated with
| the use of lithium ion batteries. We are working
| collaboratively to address questions about our testing and
| compliance with certification standards, and we will not
| hesitate to make changes that lead to improved testing
| processes and products.
|
http://www.onlineamd.com/aerospace-787-Boeing-USNTSB-021213.aspx

--bks